A U.S. appeals court on Friday was unimpressed by Apple's argument that a federal trial judge incorrectly denied the injunction of several Samsung products as part of the companies' ongoing worldwide patent dispute.

Judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments regarding a December ruling from District Judge Lucy Koh which denied Apple's request to ban sales of certain Samsung Galaxy devices, reports Reuters.

Apple lawyer Michael Jacobs asserted that the company does not need to show a causal link between patent infringement and loss of customers in order to obtain an injunction, implying that it is enough to show that Samsung likely infringed and that the iPhone maker is likely to be hurt. Koh recently acknowledged five Apple patent definitions as part of claim construction in the ongoing California case, but that has little bearing on previous findings that there was not enough evidence for a causal link.

"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," Koh wrote of the December ruling.

Judge William Bryson likened Apple's argument to the hypothetical case of a car manufacturer that copied a cupholder design from a second manufacturer. Following Apple's assertion, if the second manufacturer were to lose market share for any reason, it could ask for an injunction of cars made by the first manufacturer that use the cupholder.

"Can that possibly be right?" Judge Bryson asked.

Another judge hearing the case, Judge Sharon Prost, explained that harm as represented by lost customers ""could have been for reasons completely different from the infringement."

Jacobs is pushing for an immediate stoppage of sales because even if it wins an upcoming federal court trial scheduled for July, benefits may not be seen until late 2012.

As part of Friday's hearing, the judges attempted to solidify what evidence Apple would need in order to prove that a competitor profited off of an infringed patent. The matter is complicated because it is difficult to accurately quantify why a consumer chooses a certain product.

"We know it is a combination of elements that goes into any purchasing decision," Jacobs said.

Mentioned during the hearing was the so-called "snap-back" feature that is found in both Samsung and Apple's devices.

Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan claims that the South Korean electronics giant did not copy any part of Apple's design for this particular feature, but qualifies the statement by adding that even if it did, "snap-back" would not be a primary draw for consumers.

"There is absolutely no evidence that any consumer, as opposed to an engineer, has said, 'I'm going to purchase something because of this snap-back feature,'" Sullivan said.

Samsung has been accused by Apple of infringing on patents to mimic the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. The dispute has grown to at least 30 complaints that span across four continents.

No, it would be like a car company copying the outline of another car company's chassis, making it bigger, and calling it innovation. Make no mistake: when the original Galaxy S came out, there was no question that Samsung was going after the look and feel of the 3GS, which was the phone out at the time. Then you look at the Galaxy Tab, the dock connector cable, the charger, the smart cover, the keyboard dock, TouchWiz..... it goes on and on.

I'm not saying Samsung makes crap products. They are actually pretty good. I just wonder how good they would really be if they didn't have Apple for their "inspiration".

Of course they won't get an injunction. It's very difficult to get an injunction in US courts. Even if one is granted, there would be a time limit of several months for Samsung to comply (like the HTC case) such that Samsung would probably never lose a day of sales.

However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.

Of course they won't get an injunction. It's very difficult to get an injunction in US courts. Even if one is granted, there would be a time limit of several months for Samsung to comply (like the HTC case) such that Samsung would probably never lose a day of sales.

However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.

If a strong case yields a denied injunction, what do you need to get the injunction?

No, it would be like a car company copying the outline of another car company's chassis, making it bigger, and calling it innovation. Make no mistake: when the original Galaxy S came out, there was no question that Samsung was going after the look and feel of the 3GS, which was the phone out at the time. Then you look at the Galaxy Tab, the dock connector cable, the charger, the smart cover, the keyboard dock, TouchWiz..... it goes on and on.

I'm not saying Samsung makes crap products. They are actually pretty good. I just wonder how good they would really be if they didn't have Apple for their "inspiration".

The hardware industry was already headed in this direction. Apple unveiled early with a lot of press and IOS. It's not really hate against Apple here, and Samsung may very well have copied some things, but I don't think it references the iphone to the same degree that people believe here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," Koh wrote of the December ruling.

That pretty much sums up the article. An injunction is supposed to be reserved for a case where a product being left on the market for the duration of the case would cause irreparable harm. Otherwise it goes to trial and damages/terms are figured out after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Yes, it does. Because Apple stole its design from Google. Hypocrites.

Ever notice how many awkward silences would be have to be put into Android/Samsung supporters' arguments here for them to feel logical in verbal communication?

I'm not an Android supporter. Injunctions have nothing to do with the strength of the case. They're about whether the product being there over the trial duration would hurt the accusing company, and it should be difficult to get one whether it's Apple or another company.

No, it would be like a car company copying the outline of another car company's chassis, making it bigger, and calling it innovation. Make no mistake: when the original Galaxy S came out, there was no question that Samsung was going after the look and feel of the 3GS, which was the phone out at the time. Then you look at the Galaxy Tab, the dock connector cable, the charger, the smart cover, the keyboard dock, TouchWiz..... it goes on and on.

I'm not saying Samsung makes crap products. They are actually pretty good. I just wonder how good they would really be if they didn't have Apple for their "inspiration".

I own both a Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 and an iPad2. The power connector and charger are exact replicas of Apples. The smRt cover they have is also very, very similar. There is no question in my mind where Samsung got their ideas.

If a strong case yields a denied injunction, what do you need to get the injunction?

Think of it this way. A person could be charged with committing a serious crime (even murder), but they could still be released on bail because they're not considered a "risk".

Likewise, Samsung continuing to sell their devices does not pose any significant "risk" to Apple, and if Apple does win and gets compensation, there's no doubt in Samsung's ability to pay up. So there's no real urgency as there's no real harm (or significiant harm) being done to Apple. However, granting an injunction to Apple would pose a significant cost to Samsung in loss of sales.

On November 5, 2007, the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of several companies which include Broadcom Corporation, Google, HTC, Intel, LG, Marvell Technology Group, Motorola, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Samsung Electronics, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and Texas Instruments unveiled itself. The goal of the Open Handset Alliance is to develop open standards for mobile devices.[14] On the same day, the Open Handset Alliance also unveiled their first product, Android, a mobile device platform built on the Linux kernel version 2.6.[14]

By the way, I'm sure Andy Rubin had absolutely nothing to do with the look and feel of Android. And if you don't recognize that name and what he was involved with, you probably shouldn't respond any more.

The hardware industry was already headed in this direction. Apple unveiled early with a lot of press and IOS. It's not really hate against Apple here, and Samsung may very well have copied some things, but I don't think it references the iphone to the same degree that people believe here.

Ah, the old reference the the LG Prada and F700 (both of which were garbage phones and had horrible touch gestures).

The same can be said about the Galaxy S; the picture of its app drawer is not its homescreen, this is its homescreen:

Oh please. That whole "App Drawer" argument is getting lamer by the minute.

That's like saying "I'm going to copy the design of someone else's product, but I'm going to bury the screen a level down in the menus so it's not visible until you specifically select it" or "I'm going to copy the layout of someone's website, but I'll make it so you have to click a link on my homepage before you see the copied version". Since it's not the first thing you see, then it must be OK.

The USB connector, power adapter, app drawer. These are the things that fb's constantly harp about. But need I remind you again, normal people don't give a rat's ass about these things. Mobile World Congress, the most important gathering of the year of journalists, academians and industry leaders voted Galaxy S2 Best Smartphone and Samsung Best Manufacturer, all in the year of copygate. Go figure.

The "snap back" feature is one of the things that I love about iOS. These justices are morons to think that it particularly isn't important.

Because your intellect triumphs over years of schooling with many more years of experience in making impartial decisions. You being on this very forum makes you a non-candidate for the job position you are trying to mock. Lets see some credentials that could top these "moron" justices. These positions arent given out like candies.

Also, there is no better way to settle disputes and arguments than through an impartial, no-interest-at-stake and decisive group of individuals than Judges.

If you still disagree (for whatever reason), perhaps the problem lies within you?

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400." - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Of all the things that article could've talked about, they chose to focus on how different the user experience is between the iPhone and the F700 based primarily on the homescreen. Something the F700 actually shares with the Galaxy S.

They could've talked about the similar icons, or the iOS-like persistent dock, but no, they had to choose the one feature that actually differentiates both the F700 and the Galaxy S from the iPhone

You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.

Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.

Also, there is no better way to settle disputes and arguments than through an impartial, no-interest-at-stake and decisive group of individuals than Judges.

If you still disagree (for whatever reason), perhaps the problem lies within you?

You should tell this to the fandroids, who always seem to think the judges that decide in Apple's favor are biased, aren't smart enough to understand the issues, or even made a decision based on a bribe of $$$ or iPads.

You can twist it any way you want, but Samsung clearly ripped off the iPhone with the App Drawer. Simply calling it a different name and hiding it so you have to select it to bring it up doesn't make it OK.

Samsung even went so far as to use the little "dots" to show you which page of icons you were on. As a software engineeer I can think of half a dozen ways to do the same thing and yet Samsung didn't even put a few minutes effort into using a different method - they simply chose to duplicate Apple's verson.

Actually the app drawer if anything is proof that Google did not copy apple with Android. The app drawer is something that was more common on mobile operating systems like...BLACKBERRY. When people often show the picture of android before iOS and Android after iOS they do not put 2 and 2 together. You have to adapt your product to the market if you wish for it to sell. If google would have released android still as a non touch based operating system it would have never gotten popular. However we know after the release of the original iPhone people began to want touch based phones. As a result we saw most operating system attempt to change over to being touch based and even more utilizing touch based screens. Don't kid yourself google did not copy the iPhone (except for multitouch). Going from a blackberry look a-like to touch based does not mean they copied it means they adapted to the market.

I love Sesame Street. C'mon, let's all sing it together: "One of these things is not like the other, two of these things are kinda the same.."

It's rather appropriate that you're quoting Sesame Street seeing as you clearly have the mind of a child. I never suggested it came out first. I was aware of the correct date. It's just that your insinuation that they copied and rushed it to market is ridiculous. I linked it to show that this was nothing new. They took the F700 shape and removed the physical keyboard. My argument wasn't about performance, and neither was the lawsuit. I guess you think that sub par performance means that it was a rushed copy when Apple bought into their multitouch patent portfolio thus mitigating their (still extensive) research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by majjo

With due respect, I think he was referencing it in terms of hardware similarities, in which case he does have a point.

Though I find this somewhat ironic:

The same can be said about the Galaxy S; the picture of its app drawer is not its homescreen, this is its homescreen:

I was referring to the shape and layout of the hardware. I wasn't suggesting it preceded the iphone. They just both came out around the same time, and the iphone is the obviously iconic one that everyone will recognize. I didn't link one of the troll articles. The engadget article was from February 2007. The troll articles suggest it was announced in 2006. I checked before posting the link.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee

Oh please. That whole "App Drawer" argument is getting lamer by the minute.

That's like saying "I'm going to copy the design of someone else's product, but I'm going to bury the screen a level down in the menus so it's not visible until you specifically select it" or "I'm going to copy the layout of someone's website, but I'll make it so you have to click a link on my homepage before you see the copied version". Since it's not the first thing you see, then it must be OK.

This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.

This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.

The row of icons on a device like this originated on the Apple Newton but the reason why everybody brings up the app drawer photo is that is exactly what Samsung did - the App drawer view is what is featured in all Samsung's publicity shots, not the "home screen".
The SGS was a clear attempt to piggyback off iPhones success by producing a very similar product

All for the best, but as I've said in earlier postings, these lawsuits need to come to an end. I'm glad to hear based on rumors that Tim Cook seems pragmatic, but the sooner we see these suits end, the better.

Please list a running Android based phone in 2005, or even 2006, okay, may be the end of 2007. Enjoy.

Nope, not even 2007. The first Android-based phone available for consumers wasn't released until the end of 2008. Almost two years after the iPhone, of course it would offer similar features. That's what had the consumer's attention and it's only common sense. You're not going to build something consumers aren't looking to buy are you?

Of course they won't get an injunction. It's very difficult to get an injunction in US courts. Even if one is granted, there would be a time limit of several months for Samsung to comply (like the HTC case) such that Samsung would probably never lose a day of sales.

However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellacool

If a strong case yields a denied injunction, what do you need to get the injunction?

Go back to the original trial court order. The injunction was denied because Apple was unable to show irreparable harm, not because of any merits of the case.

To get an injunction in the U.S., you must show not only a likelihood that you will prevail on the merits of the case, but you must also show that if you win, a big, fat check from the loser would not make you whole or that the opponent has no way to pay the damages that could accrue during the trial. Since Samsung has plenty of money to pay even a multi-billion dollar decision,

Apple's only argument would be to say that the damage would be so great that money wouldn't fix it (this happens, for example, in cases where the plaintiff is a small company who might go out of business before the case is settled and therefore, even a large cash settlement would not make up for the fact that they no longer exist). Clearly, Apple's not going out of business if Samsung is allowed to copy them for another year or two. And in a fast moving business like the cell phone business, Apple (like the competition) is constantly releasing new products. Even if Apple's business is hurt today, Apple has the chance to recover market share with the next version - or the one after that.

The appeals court decision states essentially that Apple did not prove that a big, fat, damages check from Samsung would be unable to make them whole.

Denying the injunction was probably a good decision based on the legal requirements for issuing an injunction. However, it says nothing about the merits of the case since the injunction discussion was based on whether Samsung could pay sufficient damages rather than whether Apple was likely to prevail in the case (I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the original trial court even conceded that issue to Apple and said that there was a high probability that Apple would prevail in the end, but I'm not going to look it up).

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Well, its quite obvious that this goes both ways: Apple and Android .... fanboys (girls too) in general

Exhibit A:

Actually, it doesn't. There's a reason why tech blogs have resorted to using Apple article as flame bait to increase hits - it's because the fandroids/haters far outnumber the Apple fanboys and therefore generate far more hits than an Android article would.

The Apple haters would love to imply that for every Apple hater/fandroid trolling an Apple article there's an Apple fanboy trolling an Android article. A typical response would be something like "tell Apple fanboys to stay out of our threads and we'll stay out of Apple threads". The fact is that Apple haters are far more numerous and far more prolific and are responsible for the vast majority of Aple articles ending up in the $hitter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by majjo

The article makes the claim that the F700 is not like the iPhone, and as evidence they present how different the homescreen on the F700 is from the iPhone.

I'm saying that that is a bad argument because the difference in homescreen also exists between the Galaxy S and the iPhone, and thus actually hurts their case.

Instead, it would've been more convincing if they focused on how different the F700's function menu is from the iPhone, and how similar the Galaxy S' app drawer is to the iPhone.

That is all I'm saying. You seem to be the one twisting my words.

You're the one twisting the words and intent of the article. The very first picture in the article is what they're addressing - a picture that has been posted countless times by Apple haters to insinuate that the iPhone copied the F700. Look at the headline from the picture:

By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone the article proves that Apple didn't copy the F700, which is the real point of the article. They then go on to say...

"In many ways, the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style for TouchWiz."

Another quote from the article:

"Ironically, if Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700, it likely wouldn't be facing this particular lawsuit -- Apple's cases against Motorola, HTC, and Nokia are all based on technical system-level utility patents, not trade dress, trademark, or design patents."

I'm curious how you think the F700 hurts Apple's case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm

It's rather appropriate that you're quoting Sesame Street seeing as you clearly have the mind of a child. I never suggested it came out first. I was aware of the correct date. It's just that your insinuation that they copied and rushed it to market is ridiculous. I linked it to show that this was nothing new. They took the F700 shape and removed the physical keyboard. My argument wasn't about performance, and neither was the lawsuit. I guess you think that sub par performance means that it was a rushed copy when Apple bought into their multitouch patent portfolio thus mitigating their (still extensive) research.

I was referring to the shape and layout of the hardware. I wasn't suggesting it preceded the iphone. They just both came out around the same time, and the iphone is the obviously iconic one that everyone will recognize. I didn't link one of the troll articles. The engadget article was from February 2007. The troll articles suggest it was announced in 2006. I checked before posting the link.

This is just more garbage from you. The concept of rows of icons was used before this in computers, most notably Windows and Mac OS based machines, and by RIM in phones (thanks to the previous commenter for reminding me). Your argument doesn't gain any strength simply because you don't like these products. With the iphone it was such an overwhelming success that it became the new point of reference.

Resorting to personal attacks and insults are we?

I never "insinuated" that they "copied and rushed" it to market. Please show me where I said anything of the sort.

Your original post claimed the market was heading in that direction. You failed to show any product that proves your point as both the F700 and LG Prada were not only significantly different from the iPhone, but they were vastly inferior in how they worked.

Again? Are we really having this ridiculous argument about whether Android is a cheap copy of iOS again? Really?

This isn't a question of "opinion". Android is obviously a knockoff of iOS. Every shred of evidence, including the history of Google's acquisition and subsequent development of Android, especially when we look at the timeline, so obviously points to this truth that to deny it is to be either entirely disingenuous or utterly clueless. Even if Apple were to lose every court case related to this, it wouldn't change these facts. So, please, spare us the nonsense, and yourself the embarrassment, of attempting to argue otherwise. It just makes you look stupid.

Curiously, it doesn't matter whether Samsung copied Apple or not. It's only relevant that: (1) Samsung's product looks like Apple's; (2) Apple has patents on the design and features; and (3) Samsung produced its designs and features after Apple's patent applications were filed.

If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted. Cup holders aren't so highly thought of, though, in which case the Judge's cup holder example is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

Actually, it doesn't. There's a reason why tech blogs have resorted to using Apple article as flame bait to increase hits - it's because the fandroids/haters far outnumber the Apple fanboys and therefore generate far more hits than an Android article would.

Apple fans are an oppressed minority. Subject to constant abuse, they fight valiantly for truth and light, only to be mocked and ridiculed by ignorant liars.

It has always been like that.

Finally with the iPhone, it looked like the general public might realize the superiority of Apple products and Apple fans, but then Android came along and ruined everything.

The ignorant lying majority chooses Android over iOS nearly two to one when buying a cellphone. They do it to spite Apple, because the majority of people have an irrational hate of Apple and everything it stands for.

Curiously, it doesn't matter whether Samsung copied Apple or not. It's only relevant that: (1) Samsung's product looks like Apple's; (2) Apple has patents on the design and features; and (3) Samsung produced its designs and features after Apple's patent applications were filed.

Not correct. You're confusing wishful thinking with legal reality..

It is not enough to show that Samsung's product looks like Apple's. In a patent case, you must show that they violate the specific, written claims in the patent. It is perfectly legal to have a similar (or even identical) appearance if you can do so without violating the patent.

And if it's a copyright case, then you need to show that the copyright is valid and that the copyist duplicates relevant specifics of the copyright and that the copy creates risk of confusion for the customers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cpsro

If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted. Cup holders aren't so highly thought of, though, in which case the Judge's cup holder example is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

Sorry, but you're the one that's incompetent. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. As I explained above, in order get an injunction, you must show that the plaintiff has a likelihood of winning AND that a cash award would not be sufficient recompense.

To use your example, if Toyota sued Tesla Motors for copying a design element, they would have a much better chance of getting an injunction than if Tesla sued Toyota. If the plaintiff wins and is awarded damages, it is far more likely that Toyota could pay the damages than Tesla.

In this case, Samsung can clearly afford to pay any likely fine and Apple failed to show that there would be damages that money wouldn't make up for, so they rightfully lost the injunction request.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13